Chamber and committees

I open up the session to colleagues’ questions.

I am happy to agree to that, Mr Carlaw.

You said that the spending review would evolve to meet coming needs. Having questioned the SFC last week on the £764 million figure, I understand that it is, likely, a conservative estimate. Notwithstanding the fact that finding that money would lift out of poverty some people who, I hope, would no longer require such benefits, surely the number 1 priority should be to grow the Scottish economy faster than the UK economy, if we are not to end up reducing spending in other areas of the budget.

The purpose of devolved taxation is to allow Scotland to benefit from the powers—albeit that they are limited powers—to grow our economy faster than the UK economy and to allow additional funding to be available to Scotland. It is to try to squeeze a quart into a pint pot by having to find another £764 million from—[Inaudible.]

Following on from that, I note that in your statement on 9 December you said:

“Although the budget lays the groundwork for a green economic recovery from Covid-19, we must be clear that the UK Government’s spending review has hindered rather than helped us on that mission.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2021; c 70.]

Can you expand on that a little bit?

Moreover, on page 11 of its briefing to the committee, SPICE says that

“Four of the eleven portfolios fall in both cash”

and

“real terms”.

One of the portfolios is net zero, energy and transport. If the priorities are to try to boost the economy and to take on the challenge of the climate emergency, why are net zero, energy and transport and finance and the economy two of the four portfolios whose funding, according to SPICe, is falling?

Thank you—it is just for the record.

At the meeting on 18 January, is there an opportunity to allocate some of the £319.4 million of unallocated resources to some of the poorer local authorities?

No, I was not expecting you to do that, to be honest. However, if you would like to make one, I would be more than happy for you to do that. I was quite surprised that there was not one.

Sure—fire away.

In that case, it might be a couple of years before we can analyse that in any great depth.

Jackson, you and I were both list MSPs before being elected as constituency MSPs, and I am sure that you will agree that there is no comparison in terms of workload. How much longer will the SPCB pretend that there is no difference between the workloads of list and constituency MSPs, and will future assessments of staffing costs reflect that reality?

That is helpful. That takes us up to 625 staff—is that correct?